From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, zi.li@linux.dev,
anna.schumaker@oracle.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
joel.granados@kernel.org, jstultz@google.com,
kent.overstreet@linux.dev, leonylgao@tencent.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, longman@redhat.com,
mingo@redhat.com, mingzhe.yang@ly.com, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, senozhatsky@chromium.org,
tfiga@chromium.org, will@kernel.org,
Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] locking/rwsem: clear reader-owner on unlock to reduce false positives
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:44:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <21ef5892-afdf-491e-937f-7821cac63d16@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250624092620.3346ac39e882434aafb0b93d@kernel.org>
On 2025/6/24 08:26, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 12:19:25 +0800
> Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
>>
>> When CONFIG_DETECT_HUNG_TASK_BLOCKER is enabled, a stale owner pointer in a
>> reader-owned rwsem can lead to false positives in blocker tracking.
>>
>> To mitigate this, let’s try to clear the owner field on unlock, as a NULL
>> owner is better than a stale one for diagnostics.
>
> Can we merge this to [PATCH 1/3]? It seems that you removed #ifdef and
> remove it. This means in anyway we need the feature enabled by DEBUG_RWSEMS.
Thanks for the feedback! I see your point about the dependency ;)
Personlly, I'd perfer to keep them separate. The reasoning is that
they addreess two distinct things, and I think splitting them makes
this series clearer and easier to review ;)
Patch #1 focuses on "ownership tracking": Its only job is to make
the existing owner-related helpers (rwsem_owner(), is_rwsem_reader_owned())
globally available when blocker tracking is enabled.
Patch #2, on the other hand, is about "reader-owner cleanup": It
introduces a functional change to the unlock path, trying to clear
the owner field for reader-owned rwsems.
Does this reasoning make sense to you?
Thanks,
Lance
>
> Thanks,
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
>> ---
>> kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 10 ++++------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> index 6cb29442d4fc..a310eb9896de 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> @@ -205,14 +205,12 @@ bool is_rwsem_reader_owned(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> return false;
>> return rwsem_test_oflags(sem, RWSEM_READER_OWNED);
>> }
>> -#endif
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RWSEMS
>> /*
>> - * With CONFIG_DEBUG_RWSEMS configured, it will make sure that if there
>> - * is a task pointer in owner of a reader-owned rwsem, it will be the
>> - * real owner or one of the real owners. The only exception is when the
>> - * unlock is done by up_read_non_owner().
>> + * With CONFIG_DEBUG_RWSEMS or CONFIG_DETECT_HUNG_TASK_BLOCKER configured,
>> + * it will make sure that the owner field of a reader-owned rwsem either
>> + * points to a real reader-owner(s) or gets cleared. The only exception is
>> + * when the unlock is done by up_read_non_owner().
>> */
>> static inline void rwsem_clear_reader_owned(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> {
>> --
>> 2.49.0
>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-24 1:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-12 4:19 [PATCH RFC 0/3] extend hung task blocker tracking to rwsems Lance Yang
2025-06-12 4:19 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] locking/rwsem: make owner helpers globally available Lance Yang
2025-06-24 0:17 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2025-06-24 1:35 ` Lance Yang
2025-06-12 4:19 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] locking/rwsem: clear reader-owner on unlock to reduce false positives Lance Yang
2025-06-24 0:26 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2025-06-24 1:44 ` Lance Yang [this message]
2025-06-24 3:53 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2025-06-24 5:02 ` Lance Yang
2025-06-24 6:13 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2025-06-24 7:38 ` Lance Yang
2025-06-12 4:19 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] hung_task: extend hung task blocker tracking to rwsems Lance Yang
2025-06-24 3:57 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2025-06-24 4:25 ` Lance Yang
2025-06-23 12:33 ` [PATCH RFC 0/3] " Lance Yang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=21ef5892-afdf-491e-937f-7821cac63d16@linux.dev \
--to=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anna.schumaker@oracle.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=ioworker0@gmail.com \
--cc=joel.granados@kernel.org \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=leonylgao@tencent.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mingzhe.yang@ly.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=tfiga@chromium.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=zi.li@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).